To think he’s not doing anything wrong by stopping maintenance?

[GumdropsAndLollipops]

My DB “Jack” has two kids with his ex “Anne”, DS8 and DD10.

Up until a year ago, Jack had the children 3 nights a week and Anne had them 4 nights a week. Jack is also a high earner and has always paid child maintenance to Anne above CM rate (as it should be).

Last year, Anne was due to have her second child with her DP and asked Jack to swap the schedule so he had their children 4 nights and she had them 3 nights instead. The court order was updated and means Jack has been the resident parent for the last year however he carried on paying maintenance to Anne at the same rate due to the fact she was on maternity leave (this was due to stop when she returned to work).

Fast forward to now and Jack recently cashed in an investment which has allowed him to pay off his mortgage and become financially secure. With this in mind, Jack has decided he would like to quit his job to spend more time with the kids and to just generally live a less busy and hectic life as without the commitment of a mortgage payment, he can live comfortably on freelance work while the kids are in school or at their mum’s.

Jack didn’t foresee any of this being a problem for Anne as the maintenance payments were due to stop anyway but she has hit the roof; saying he needs to continue the payments as not doing so would put her household into financial hardship.

Jack has it made clear that he will not be requesting any maintenance from her and that he will carry on paying for everything as before (clothes, uniform, trips, hobbies, sports etc) and has offered to have their children more, do pick ups / drop off on her days, cover all sickness absences as he won’t have a work schedule but all hell has broken loose.

As per my title, I don’t think Jack is wrong (but I’m biased as I don’t like Anne) so I thought I’d ask here in case there’s something I’m missing or have not thought about.

So, is Jack being unreasonable to quit his job and stop the voluntary maintenance payments?

If she's claiming any benefits he can still claim cms from her if he wishes. It wouldn't be much obviously.

No, it doesn't.

No they aren't.

They can be in instances where the NRP earns amounts outside the remit of the CMS, but these are judged on a case by case basis. OP hasn’t said that he earns enough to put him in this particular bracket, incidentally, but if he is, that he has primary residency of the children would be particularly pertinent.

Not sure why you don’t believe what people are telling you but this might help. Of course depends if your brother is a high earner by this definition or just above average.

How can you respond and offer sensible advice without reading?

Does it though if he is in fact the resident parent? Can the non resident parent claim maintenance now?

I think that would be news to lots of high earning women.

Because the article refers to the "paying parent" he isn't the paying parent, the ex is, or should be.

You can't take your ex to court to pay you child support when they have the children more than you do. That would be insane.

Thought I’d come on and give a quick update as I can’t sleep.

So we inadvertently found out why Anne is so angry and why she’s kicked off despite agreeing to the maintenance terms from the very beginning, turns out she’s pregnant with baby #5.

My guess is she hoped to convince DB to continue paying until the end of her next maternity leave but she’s realised she has no hope of that if his income is reduced.

My DB’s reasoning for agreeing to temporarily continue maintenance in the first place, was that at the time Anne got pregnant, neither of them foresaw residency changing (it had been like that for the previous 6 years) and he reasoned she probably budgeted for her maternity leave taking his maintenance into account so he didn’t want to put her into a difficult financial position at a vulnerable time so they both agreed maintenance would stop at the end of maternity leave as she’d be in a better financial position when she was back at work.

Anyway this time around, my DB says she knew there would be no maintenance BEFORE she got pregnant with baby #5 so her plans / budget should have been made with that in mind (unlike with the previous pregnancy). As far as he’s concerned, he’s honoured his agreement and the rest is her business.

It’s from personal experience- my ex earns £0.3-£0.5m a year, 10x more than me has 50% custody and pays maintenance. As guide by our lawyers. So I’m not making it up.

Yes, that can happen in cases where there is 50/50 shared care. The father in this case, however, is the resident parent.

all of this..

Absolutely

time for your brother to stand his ground.

Anne is outrageous! Why on earth should your brother be funding anything other than his children?!

Oh I thought he had them 4 days and she had them 3, in which case it’s totally reasonable to expect him to contribute (if he’s a high earner in the eyes of the law). If you’re saying he’s got them 100% then the conversation just goes away. Resident parent is a CMS term I presume and is when no maintenance is given when custody is 50:50, or to support the person who has them more. Only you know if your brothers income
puts him in or out of CMS jurisdiction. The rules are different because what’s equitable is different in those circumstances. I think if you can see it as CMS or high earner rules then it will be more clear cut. Then which ever he falls into it really doesn’t matter what she thinks because he’s following the appropriate guidance and he can feel secure that he’s going what the law says is the right thing

Anne likes free £.

Don't pay.

Anne should stop getting pregnant and hoping ex will fund her! Maybe Jack will end up with kiddies majority of the time while she runs round after all her new sprogs…. Jack sounds like a wonderful father and person but he should stand his ground and not fund her new family

The resident parent is the one that has them the majority of the time, which he does. This isn’t a case where there is 50/50 shared care where, depending on his income, he could still be liable to pay.

No resident parent is used universally to mean the parent who has the child the majority of the time. It is used in 50/50 but it's more a formality than anything else.

Why do you think it's reasonable for him to pay his ex when he has them more and not vice versa? Would you think the same if he was a high earning woman?

It's good your DB has his sons most of the time, it's going to be cramped and noisy at Mums with his kids, theirs and hers. I can see them asking to stay at Dads full time soon which will end the argument for good

Yep not a gender thing, a responsibility to child thing. I’ve shared my knowledge on the process and the way the law works and has evolved over time to protect kids. There’s not much I can objectively add, you might be best if your brother seeks legal advice. People have different opinions on what’s fair because of how they feel about the people involved or which parent they are. The courts don’t care they just want the kids to be properly provided for and not economically disadvantaged, and now economic abuse is a crime they also look out for controlling coercive behavior conducted through finances. If your brother is confident what’s he doing is ok, why does he also need her to be happy about it.

So you honestly honestly believe

You could have parent one having the kids 4 days a week
Parent 2 having them 3 days a week

Parent 1 continues in job they've had forever because they need to pay the mortgage or whatever.
Parent 2 can't really be arsed, keeps having additional kids and therefore earns less

And you think Parent 1 should pay them?

That's not making thinks equitable or supporting the children. That's one Parent subsiding the other and choices that should not affect Parent 1 or their joint children.

And I can't see that if Parent 2 was a man, anyone would agree with that.

Thankfully despite your knowledge I don't think this actually happens very often and good, because its ridiculous and so open to abuse it's untrue.

You’ve shared knowledge that is irrelevant to this situation. The courts aren’t going to look a him, as the resident parent, and expect him to pay child maintenance, regardless of what he earns. The notion that not paying child maintenance for children you have primary care of could possibly be construed as economic abuse or coercive control is laughable.

If he seeks legal advice that is what he will be told.

It doesn’t happen. The ‘knowledge’ being shared can apply to 50/50 arrangements where there is a large financial disparity. It doesn’t apply to the situation OP’s brother is in. A resident parent does not owe child maintenance to the non resident parent.

I know it doesn't, and it's thankfully rare in 50/50 set ups as most people are happy to be financially separate and have a clean break from their ex. And ofc only applies to very high earners, usually who were married and it's usually sorted on divorce.

I just wanted to question the logic, or apparent lack thereof. Because when you write it out in black and white is quite obviously a stupid idea.